https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253861 The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appellant's refund claim under Notification No. 17/2009-ST, emphasizing compliance with the notification's conditions for eligibility. The appellant's argument for credit under the Reverse Charge Mechanism was rejected, as the appellant did not pay the service tax directly to the provider but discharged the liability under the Finance Act. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeal) that the refund claim did not align with the notification's provisions, ultimately denying the appeal and stressing adherence to the notification's requirements for service tax refund claims related to exports. en-us Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2015 10:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253861 The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appellant's refund claim under Notification No. 17/2009-ST, emphasizing compliance with the notification's conditions for eligibility. The appellant's argument for credit under the Reverse Charge Mechanism was rejected, as the appellant did not pay the service tax directly to the provider but discharged the liability under the Finance Act. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeal) that the refund claim did not align with the notification's provisions, ultimately denying the appeal and stressing adherence to the notification's requirements for service tax refund claims related to exports. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253861